Sellout Programs will fail
Palestinian leader Arafat capitulated by recognizing Israel on 78% of the land of Palestine in hopes of being allowed an independent state on the remaining 22%. Many "deals" since then failed because as Amnesty International put it, they fail to recognize the importance of human rights. The media is trumpets the latest in this line of agreements from the Ayalon-Nusseibeh to the Geneva understandings. Guided by an imbalance of power, Palestinians would be asked to abrogate the right of return to their homes and lands and to recognize Israel not as a state of its citizens but as a state "for the Jewish people." In short, this blatantly violates International Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). What it means is that the victims of Israeli colonialism are expected to certify that it is OK for Israel to remain the only country in the world that identifies its lands as belonging not to its citizens but to "Jewish people everywhere". This means that the Palestinians accept that Israel caused the largest remaining refugee problem in the world and can break international law and basic human rights and refuse to allow them to return to their farms, businesses, homes and lands. The Palestinians must recognize that Israel can remain the only country in the world that gives members of a particular religion including converts automatic rights (citizenship, land, homes, subsidies) that supercede and mostly replace those of "citizens" and native people who belong to other religions. Israel grants automatic citizenship to any individual who has one Jewish grandparent while denying citizenship to native Christians and Muslims simply for being of the wrong religion.
Israel is the only country in the world whose legitimacy does not flow from rights of self-determination of natives but Zionist claim of biblical authority. Ofcourse there was a UN general assembly resolution in 1947 which called for partition of a native land to give 55% of the land to Jews who at the time represented 30% of the population and most of them new settlers/colonists and owned 7% of the land. Native Jews actually were not Zionists for the most part and rejected such partition. The resolution was unfair and could not be accepted any more than Algerians were willing to split their country with French colonists. It was accomplished by much arm-twisting by the US and the USSR. Yet, the resolution rejected any population transfer and included Internationalizing Jerusalem, on an economic union, and on free movement of people. All these provisions where unacceptable to the Zionist movement and are denied in the Geneva accords.
On December 3rd 2003 I watched the broadcast a press conference with the architects of the much-hyped new "Geneva Accords" and it reminded me of the movie titled "The Matrix." This event was held at the Brooking's Institute and "moderated" by Martin Indyk. The Brookings Institute is one of many think tanks with agendas that shape policies in Washington to benefit special interests (in this case arms and oil industries and Zionist agendas). Indyk was the first to be appointed as US Ambassador to a country that he lobbied for (in this case Israel). The Clinton Administration speeded up his acquisition of US Citizenship and rapid confirmation due to a strong Israeli lobby that Indyk was part of. His current employment is a director of the Haim Saban Center (another "Think Tank"). Saban is an Israeli who runs Fox's media empire and made millions from shows and games (criticized widely as teaching violence to children).
Anyways, Barry Schweid of the Associated Press asks this loaded question. "We all know that in these proposed agreements Israel is giving up so much, but what are the Palestinians really giving up? There is little they are expected to give up." Mr. Abed Rabbo proceeded to say that no one can measure what "each side" is giving up and he is not interested in using the language of concessions. That there are needs for both sides and that the document addresses in a pragmatic way the needs and aspirations of "both people." I was not sure which one caused me more headache, the question or the answer. The "accord" is nothing short of a surrender document by self-appointed leaders of the native people at the mercy of their oppressors and colonizers. It abrogates the rights of six million refugees and displaced people. Both as a collective national right and as an individual right, these rights are enshrined in International law. The accord strengthens existing attempts to relocate and scatter Palestinian refugees throughout the world and gives credence and legitimacy for the first time for creating states for particular religious minorities (Palestinians have to recognize not only Israel on 78% of the Palestinian land but Israel as a state "for the Jewish people").
Under the US two party system of government, we now have the policies of the Republican Party dominated by Likud Zionists (Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser et al.) and those of the Democratic Party dominated by Labor Zionists (Saban, Indyk, Dennis Ross et al.). The American citizen meanwhile is subjected to a barrage of media distortions by entrenched Zionist mouthpieces. These Zionist pundits of various shades include Friedman (NY Times), Barry Schweid (AP), Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe), Krauthammer, Zuckerman, Pipes, and hundreds more.
Post Zionist or anti-Zionist discourses are simply not allowed any space in most mainstream US media. Even Jewish voices speaking out against apartheid are silenced with labels of “self hating Jews”. Many human rights advocates of all religions have lost their jobs for speaking the truth. The discourse allowed in a corporate-owned media world is a collegial debates between Zionists who want to allow 10% and those who want to allow 15-20% of Palestine to be partially control by its original owners. Thus, some of those Zionist editors will allow that kind of debate on their opinion pages. Arguments allowed include whether Israel should support Geneva accords or should reject them because Palestinians are violent and untrustworthy. "End the occupation" is an allowed opinion but end apartheid is not allowed. Comparison with native American treaties or South African Bantustans are a no-no. The discussion essentially centers on the limits of the future Palestinian cantons allowed in the apartheid system which is taken for granted (need to maintain Israel as a country for and by the Jewish people). Palestinians are not allowed to address culpability for the war crimes and ethnic cleansing perpetuated on them for 55 years.
Meanwhile Palestinian secular leadership was taken over by corrupt elites who have no connection to the aspirations or rights of millions of their people. This merely leaves resistance to colonization and oppression in the hands of the Islamic forces (Hamas, Islamic Jihad). It also leaves the hijacked US foreign policy to remain the most destructive it has been in 200 years. The most powerful nation on earth is reduced to policing duties in Iraq and Afghanistan (and dozens of other countries) in a futile effort to keep the Arabic and Islamic world divided, weakened and subservient. This is thought to guard Israeli hegemony and oppression and give us cntrol of the lifeblood of the world economies. The incredible agenda is clearly articulated by people like Perle and Wolfowitz (for example in memorandum to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996). While having the most military power, this hijacked policy brought us down to the lowest political and moral power in US history. Now, a vast majority of the world population thinks of the US government officials (and their directors in Tel Aviv) as the greatest threats to world peace.
Israel violated over 70 UN Security Council resolutions and was protected from 35 others by US veto. Yet Israel receives billions in tax-funded aid in direct violations of US law. Speaking of "eventually" having a Palestinian demilitarized mini-state is analogous to South Africa speaking about having ministates for blacks (what became known as Bantustans or large Ghettos). The only difference is that South Africa never insisted that the appointed quisling rulers of those bantustans recognize South Africa as a state "for the white people." Now Palestinian authority leadership is on probation to see if it can fulfill its assigned role which is similar to roles played by other cronies of Washinghton in the Arab world (people like Mubarak aof Egypt and Abdullah of Jordan).
This bleak picture is not static though. Unless annihilated (a difficult task in the 21st century), no native people have ever succumbed to oppressors, however powerful. The cause of peace and justice (including restoration of refugees to their homes and lands) will eventually succeed. Our job in the West is to support this cause. Such a support will speed up the arrival of the day of justice and will reduce our governments backing of tyrrany (now to eh tune of billions of tax dollars per year). While such a grassroot campaign faces many obstacles, it is important and it is doable. This is proven by countless examples from history: women right to vote, civil rights, work against the Vietnam war, the anti-apartheid movement (for South Africa), and most recently our work to end the occupation of Iraq.
The description above is far too be brief to be comprehensive. I encourage those who need further information on the political and historical context to read such books as Edward Said “The Question of Palestine” and my own book titled "Sharing the Land of Canaan.” The material to follow here comprises essentially a compilation of techniques learned by activists and accumulated primarly through work for the Palestine Right to Return Coalition.